www.thegamer.com
How is that a DEI thing?
Any game that forces players to do that is bad. Concord did the same. After each match you won, you had to choose a different character. I never got into Darkest Dungeon either because their system of fatigue/stress/disease whatever requires gamers to rotate characters in and out when they are healthy or out of commission. I play the game for the first time and it's pretty cool. Next thing you know two of my guys are in bed at the inn or in asylum and cant be used for 2 weeks or something.
The UI is objectively unfinished. It's not just bad. The game cant even tell you the difference between the map types. Or the game speeds. The game doesnt tell you the unique abilities of scouts. So if you just looked at the tooltip, it would appear as warriors being objectively better than scouts, always. Sometimes you get to choose between a free warrior or a migrant? What does a migrant do? Who knows, there is no tooltip there. What does happiness do? Lets check the tooltip. Ahh 'Happiness'. Got you. Happiness is happiness duh.
An absolutely bizarre choice. I imagine it's an attempt to stop people from stopping in the mid game because they found it too hard to shift victory goals halfway through a game, but completely changing your Civ is not the solution in my opinion.
Yea, im not on board with this, did they just do this to switch things up and make the game less linear? im not sure i get the change
I personally like it. I think the idea is to have a good civ the entire game. Instead of having an early game civ that loses relevancy later on, or a late game civ that really doesnt do much in the early game.
Yea that sounds bad. I guess the UI plays a pretty damn big role in a game like this, it's almost THE game.
Everything negative is down to DEI, right? What a retarded way of thinking.
I'll have to try it out myself before making my final judgement, i just think its strange
lol... the like to dislike ratioIs this the one where Harriet Tubman is a faction leader? Yeah I'm good thanks
Pretty much why I threw in the towel on Civ3. Tried playing the tutorial which basically didn't tell me anything. (I had played 2 but did the tutorial to find out about the new stuff which it didn't bother.) I got stuck on a piece of land with no resources and only one way off that required me to go through an enemy city. No matter what I negotiated they always refused me so I couldn't get off so I wasted a ton of resources trying to take out that one city so I could get off my chunk of land. Yeah and as soon as I took out the city (and didn't have anything left to set up my own) there just happened to be a settler from another civ ready to put their new city right where the old one was. (Yeah and they didn't want to negotiate either.) Pretty much uninstalled it at that point and sold the game.
Could you explain what you are referring to? I played up through V then stopped, but the way I am reading this post is if you start a game from nothing and you build up through the ages (like in Civ V) when you pass into a new era are you saying that you have to start over in the same game with a different civ but in the new era you passed into?
Right now, the only size maps you can have is Tiny, Small or Standard. Bigger maps coming "soon". A lot of the advanced settings from C6 are missing too right now
Im playing on the standard PS5, there are a few bugs. Theres a memory leak somewhere that crashes the game after about 3hours like clockwork. Ive also had the PS5 shut down on me a few times. It's not overheating...but it's auto shutting down every now and again, no warning
Civ 4 or 5
Or wait for it to be free on the Epic store
Quite simply you don't have a single faction you stick to "from start to end".
